Archive ref no: NCA-19836
Nepal:
The case for sanctions and extension of restrictive measures
Table of contents Embargoed for 4 October 2005
1. Overview..
2. Mapping the key actors: 3
i. King Gyanendra – The Royal Folly. 3
ii. The United States: Change the tunnel vision. 4
iii. India: Shun cold war phobia. 4
iv. Political parties – will GP be BP or a sell-out? 4
v. The Maoists: Stop looking through the barrel of the gun. 5
3. Continued human rights violations. 5
i. Justice mutilated. 5
ii. Torture and use of disproportionate force against the protestors 6
4. The case for sanctions and extension of restrictive measures. 7
1. Overview
A delegation of the European Union (EU) Troika is scheduled to visit Nepal from 4 to 6 October 2005. The EU Troika had last visited Nepal in mid-December 2004 and had met the proxy government headed by Sher Bahadur Deuba who is presently in jail.
The delegation of the EU-Troika undertakes the visit at an "interesting time", following the visit of a delegation of an all-party political parties from India.
Despite the intervention of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at its 61st session and subsequent establishment of the Office of the United Nation High Commissioner for Human Rights, there have been reports of systematic human rights violations. It is no longer limited to the use of disproportionate force against the protestors but extreme sexual violence including biting of women protestors and poking batons at the sensitive organs, sexual molestation and other violations during arrest as well as while under police detention. [1]
The limited sanctions on sale of arms to Nepal have so far failed to break the political stalemate. Dr Tulsi Giri, Vice Chairman of the Council of Minister has made clear the intention of the King Gyanendra to cling on to power.
The EU Troika must not restrict its visit to the assessment of the prevailing situation in Nepal.
Rather than talking to the wall, King Gyanendra, the EU Troika must assess effectiveness of the current measures taken against King Gyanendra and recommend what further measures be taken if King Gyanendra refuses to restore democracy and find a solution with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists). If the ongoing talks between the Maoists and the political parties result in the Maoists accepting solution within the framework of democracy, human rights and good governance, the EU and other like minded countries need to take pre-emptive measures.
At the moment, interventions have been hamstrung by lack of a coherent policy amongst the key actors.
The United States has no clear-cut policy for engaging with the Maoists. The United States welcomed the cease-fire declared by the Maoists on 22 September 2005, 19 days after the Maoists had made the declaration.
India’s policy on Nepal remains critical but it has not been decisive enough. India remains opposed to the involvement of the United Nations or any credible third party for mediation. This is despite the fact that monitoring of cease-fire by international monitors in Sri Lanka had visible positive effects. The recommendations by the all party team from India are unlikely to make substantive difference on this issue.
Political parties in Nepal have failed to muster adequate support in the street – both because of the lack of support as well as overwhelming security presence in Kathmandu valley. The Political parties have failed to dispel the fear that if the parliament is restored, it will open the floodgate for cosying upto the King. The political parties have also failed to spell out their vision and mainly remained reactive to the initiatives taken by the King and the Maoists.
The Maoists declared unilateral cease-fire on 3 September 2005. There are attempt by the Royal Nepal Army to provoke the Maoists. However, unless the Maoists declare their commitment to respect for a Code of Conduct on human rights, make a declaration and take corresponding measures for resolution of the armed conflict in Nepal within the framework of human rights, democracy and good governance, the cease-fire alone cannot provide the legitimacy it seeks to gain.
The justice system has been mutilated in Nepal. While the Nepalese government officials do accept human rights violations, they have failed to take any effective measures to improve the situation.
The use of extreme violence against the protestors is a sign of nervousness of King Gyanendra who remains concerned about any possible rapprochement between the Maoists and the overground political parties. The use of force of violence by the RNA is likely to increase if the political parties and the Maoists reach an agreement to have formal dialogue. If King Gyanendra still refuses to give up, a full-scale civil war or further gross violations of human rights cannot be ruled out.
The EU Troika therefore must take decisive actions. Asian Centre for Human Rights recommends the following to the EU Troika:
On Government of Nepal
The EU-Troika should:
- Recommend a Common EU Position and a Regulation to impose sanctions against the King Gyanendra and his administration including a visa ban and a freeze on assets of the members of the Royal family, government ministers, senior members of the Royal Nepal Army, state-owned economic enterprises, and on beneficiaries of the government’s economic policy and members of their families. The sanctions should also include a ban on technical assistance, on financing and financial assistance related to military activities, and on the export of equipment that might be used for repression on-pro democracy activists;
- Recommend that no fund for developmental activities from EU or multilateral agencies be routed through the government of Nepal and such projects be implemented directly or through the NGOs;
- Urge the government of Nepal to respond positively to the cease-fire declared by the Maoists and the OHCHR be invited to monitor the cease-fire agreement and that a fresh Memorandum of Understanding be signed accordingly;
- Urge the government of Nepal to ensure that RNA signs and ensure respect for the Code of Conduct on human rights and humanitarian laws to be monitored by OHCHR and
- Take measures to uphold the supremacy of the judiciary and ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms including the right to freedom of association and assembly and the right to freedom of expression.
On the United States
The EU-Troika should call upon the United States to:
- Support the measures including a Common EU Position and Regulation to be taken by the European Union;
- Review its policy on engagement with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) with a view to ensure restoration of full democracy and peace in Nepal; and
- Consider imposing further sanctions and extension of the restrictive measures against His Majesty Government of Nepal;
On India
The EU-Troika should call upon India to:
- Support the measures including a Common EU Position and Regulation to be taken by the European Union;
- Use its good offices to urge the government of Nepal to respond to the unilateral cease-fire declared by the Maoists;
- Support monitoring of cease-fire by international observers such as the OHCHR to ensure its respect;
On the political parties in Nepal
The EU-Troika should call upon the political parties to:
- Take initiatives to hold dialogue with the Maoists for resolution of the conflict in Nepal within the framework of human rights, democracy and good governance;
On the Maoists:
The EU-Troika should,
- Welcome the unilateral cease-fire by the Maoists:
- Urge the Maoists to sign the Code of Conduct on human rights to be monitored by OHCHR; and
- Join the democratic forces for resolution of the conflict in Nepal within the framework of human rights, democracy and good governance.
2. Mapping the key actors:
i. King Gyanendra – The Royal Folly
King Gyanendra has not given given any indication for restoration of democracy or resolving the Maoists conflict – the official raisen detre – for Royal takeover on 1 February 2005. Instead, he has spurned the unilateral cease –fire declared by the Maoists on 3 September 2005. The Royal Nepal Army (RNA) on many occasions sought to provoke the Maoists. The Civil Society’s Ceasefire Monitoring Committee stated on 2 October 2005 that six Maoists and a civilian were not killed during crossfire on September 24 in Bahadurpur area of Palpa district but in unprovoked firing by the RNA. [2]
King Gyanendra has been trying to re-invent himself as a popular ruler of Nepal. He wears camouflaged army dress to show solidarity with the Royal Nepal Army. He also orchestrates interactions with the public to fool the international community. It is another matter that on 22 September 2005 eight students were injured in a clash with the police in front of Ratna Rajya Multiple Campus while they were protesting against the "forcible" deployment of students to welcome King Gyanendra on his visit to Lalitpur district. [3]
Vice-Chairman of the Council of Minister, Dr Tulsi Giri’s penchant for public speaking leaves little doubt about the intention of King Gyanendra to cling on to power. His statement on 19 September 2005 that the Constitution of Nepal is a major obstacle in achieving the king’s objectives expressed in his February 1 royal proclamation and that the government is not obliged to abide by the Constitution [4] - sent the rumour mills working overtime. Foreign Minister Ram Nath Pandey sought two years time to hold the general elections. Two years is quite a long time considering that then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba was given the deadline of 1 April 2005 to hold elections.
ii. The United States: Change the tunnel vision
On Nepal, the United States continues to suffer from the"policy of generalization" which equates the Maoists with Al-Qaeda. Unless, the US policies are adapted to address specificities of Nepal, they will only endure autocracy and violations of human rights.
While the unilateral cease-fire by the Maoists was welcomed across the spectrum, the United States failed to react until 22 September 2005. Its belated but cautious welcome can be construed as a statement of recognition of the respect for cease-fire by the Maoists.
The United States needs to change its policy. The views expressed by its key ally could be useful.
Ambassador of the United Kingdom, His Excellency Keith Bloomfield, a well-known counter terrorism expert, articulated the engagement with the Maoists. Ambassador Bloomfield, in his article, Terrorism – No Double Standards, in The Rising Nepal on 28 July 2005 elucidated the position of the British government. Ambassador Bloomfield wrote that he was often "challenged to explain alleged British double standards on terrorism in relation to the Maoist insurgency in Nepal. How come we condemn the London terror attacks so strongly yet do not label the Maoists terrorists? How come we are even urging the Nepalese government to negotiate with terrorists?"
As Ambassador Bloomfield wrote "There is a world of difference between (a) an armed insurrection involving thousands of a country’s own citizens in a classic guerrilla warfare environment, with political and socio-economic demands, many of which are shared by the mainstream political parties, and (b) Al Qaeda, which is a worldwide extremist network and involves only a tiny minority of a minority religious group in the UK, with no coherent negotiable demands or formal structure".
Unless the United States is able to change its tunnel vision to address specificities of Nepal, its policies will only contribute to the abyss of Nepal.
It is essential that the United States equates the King and the Maoists, rather than the Maoists and the Al-Qaeda.
iii. India: Shun cold war phobia
India’s reported objection to the role of the United Nations or any other third party for mediation in Nepal needs to be addressed. It is clear that New Delhi’s mandarin still suffer from cold-war phobia.
The European Union needs to find a common ground with India. Mediation is a different issue from cease-fire monitoring. Given India’s reservation on mediation by the UN or any other third party, EU should explore the possibility of monitoring of cease-fire agreements if the government of Nepal responds. The monitoring of cease-fire between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam had perceptible effects on the ground. New Delhi, EU and the United States must realize that monitoring of cease-fire by international observers will only strengthen the democratic forces of Nepal who have been virtually squeezed by the RNA and the Maoists.
Since the Maoists declared cease-fire, the National Human Rights Commission has expressed the desire to monitor the cease-fire. A Civil Society Ceasefire Monitoring Committee too has been set up.
The NHRC members who have been appointed by King Gyanendra do not have legitimacy, capacity and independence to monitor cease-fire. The Civil Society Ceasefire Monitoring Committee is unlikely to have access.
The presence of international cease-fire monitors does not imply the presence of the blue helmets. A Memorandum of Understanding can be signed with the OHCHR to develop "Code of Conduct on Human Rights" to be signed by the government and the Maoists and monitoring of its implementation including possible cease-fire agreements.
iv. Political parties – will GP be BP or a sell-out?
The political parties have failed to show their strength on the streets to force change. It is partly because of the lack of faith of the people due to a range of factors as well as overwhelming security presence in Kathmandu. The dictum – "whoever controls Kathmandu controls Nepal" – holds true.
Political parties have so far reacted to the initiatives of both the King and the Maoists. This is despite the fact that both these anarchists require the imprimateur of the political parties.
The formation of seven-party alliance was a welcome. It took over six months for the political parties to welcome talks in principle with the Maoists.
The informal talks between the political parties and the Maoists have been reportedly struck on the prickly issue of the restoration of the parliament. The Maoists have expressed reservations on the restoration of parliament. Political parties have also failed to dispel the fear of the public and the Maoists that they will compromise with King Gyanendra if the parliament is restored. Most importantly, the political parties have also failed to spell out their programmes of action they will undertake if the parliament were restored.
Nepali Congress led by G P Koirala reportedly has a hard line approach for the restoration of the parliament. GP has the historic opportunity to play the role of the patriarch in Nepali politics that he is. He has the opportunity to rise above the party politics and be the leader of all the Nepalese democratic forces and not only Nepali Congress. The bickering between G P Koirala and Sher Bahadur Deuba in 2002 provided the opportunity to King Gyanendra to dismiss the parliament and rule Nepal with proxy governments.
In many ways, GP Koirala has the opportunity to go down in the history like legendary BP Koirala.
v. The Maoists: Stop looking through the barrel of the gun
The declaration of unilateral cease-fire by the Maoists has been welcomed across the spectrum. The attempt of the RNA to provoke the Maoists has further given credence to the cease-fire.
Instead of falling victims to the provocation of the RNA, the Maoists must utilise the goodwill generated by the unilateral cease-fire. In this regard, the Maoists must bring an end to violence against civilians and non-combatants, extortion, hostage taking, extrajudicial executions and recruitment of child soldiers.
The Maoists should seriously consider unilaterally signing the Code of Conduct to ensure respect for human rights and humanitarian laws and establish accountability mechanisms for abuses by its cadres.
In addition, the Maoists must also declare their intention to participate in the mainstream politics to work with democratic political parties for resolution of the problems in Nepal. Across South Asia, governments have been holding talks with the armed opposition groups without the armed opposition groups laying down their arms but the intention to participate in democratic process must be unequivocally made clear.
If the Maoists declare their intention to participate in democratic processes and take measures to hold talks with the political parties, it could be decisive for Nepal.
3. Continued human rights violations
The Nepalese security forces continue to violate human rights and fundamental freedoms with impunity. The reports of arbitrary arrest, detention, torture and extrajudicial executions are routinely reported.
However, Asian Centre for Human Rights decided to highlight on complete breakdown of the rule of law and the use of disproportionate force against the pro-democracy activists.
i. Justice mutilated
The most serious issue is the way justice system has been mutilated in Nepal.
On 22 September 2005 at 8.40 pm, the police re-arrested Krishna KC, former vice-president of the Maoist-affiliated All Nepal National Independent Students’ Union (Revolutionary) from the Supreme Court premises three-and-a-half hours after the apex court ordered his release citing lack of sufficient ground to prolong his detention. [5] The army vehicle reportedly waited outside the court premises to re-arrest him. The drama continued till 8 pm. One of the Supreme Court judges reportedly made a telephonic call to Dr Tulsi Giri requesting him to instruct the army not to arrest Krishna KC from the court premises. The RNA personnel refused to move. Finally, a police officer issued the re-arrest warrant to Krishna KC within the court premises.
Asian Centre for Human Rights recorded as many as 15 cases of re-arrest involving 27 persons including former minister Jaya Prakash Prasad Gupta, student leaders Gagan Thapa, Rajendra Rai and Krishna KC.
The following persons were re-arrested during 30 April – 22 September 2005:
On 16 September 2005, the UN Special Rapporteur concluded that torture is systematically practiced in Nepal. The press release stated "On the basis of his interviews with current and former detainees, with the support of forensic medical evidence, and interviews with Government and military officials, lawyers and representatives of NGOs, the Special Rapporteur concludes unequivocally that torture and ill-treatment is systematically practiced in Nepal by the police, armed police and the RNA in order to extract confessions and to obtain intelligence, among other things". [19]
Unlike many other governments, the government of Nepal openly accepts the existence of serious human rights violations but does little to improve the human rights situations.
On 20 September 2005, representative of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Nepal, Ian Martin, expressed serious concern over "incidents of police throwing stones at demonstrators leading to injuries, the use of teargas guns in close proximity to demonstrators and in the vicinity of hospitals and schools, the arrest of demonstrators on questionable legal grounds, the excessive and indiscriminate use of force by some policemen while taking demonstrators into custody, the failure to facilitate access to medical care for injured demonstrators, as well as threats and injuries to some human rights monitors and members of the press observing the demonstrations". [20]
Leading medical experts in the country urged the government of Nepal to immediately stop use of tear gas against demonstrators. The doctors said, though the immediate impact of tear gas seems normal, in the long run it results into complications like pain in the chest, cancer and loss in reproductive capability. [21] But the riot police continued to use tear gas shells not only against demonstrators on the open streets, but also within school and hospital premises. On 14 September 2005, riot police entered the premises of Miteri Hospital in Bagbazaar while chasing demonstrators and baton charged several innocent people there without asking any question. At least six persons were injured. [22] The police also lobbed tear gas shells into the premises of Neptune Boarding School in Bagbazaar due to which 12 students reportedly fell unconscious and several nursery-level children were severely affected. [23]
What remains most disconcerting is that women protestors were bitten, beaten up and poked batons at their sensitive organs, sexually molested and abused by the security forces during arrested and under police detention after they were arrested from pro-democracy rallies. [24]
The injury to Nepali Congress President G P Koirala on 4 September 2005 is a clear example of the use of brutality. More than 150 political leaders and activists were arrested by the police from a protest rally in Kathmandu. Police resorted to baton charge and fired tear gas shells to disperse the demonstrators. The Police indiscriminately fired tear gas cells at the Nawa Adarsha Secondary School at Basantapur injuring three students. [25]
On 20 September 2005, police arrested 87 university professors and about 290 political activists in Kathmandu during crackdown on two separate demonstrations demanding democracy and professional freedom. They were released in the evening. CPN-UML leader Rameshwor Phuyal and women leaders Sushma Sharma and Urmila were reportedly injured in police action. Student organizations affiliated with the agitating seven-party alliance accused the police of sexually abusing women demonstrators while arresting them. [26]
On 14 September 2005, 232 demonstrators of the seven-party alliance and student unions were arrested in the capital and were later released. Security forces also resorted to firing tear gas shells and lathi charge upon the agitators. A few agitators including Maheswori Kunwar, Medini Sitaula and Buddha Lama reportedly fell unconscious due to police excesses and they had to be admitted to hospital. [27]
On 7 September 2005, 99 leaders of seven-party alliance were arrested during protests in prohibited areas in New Road in Kathmandu. Several protestors were injured in baton charge and firing of tear gas shells and water canons by police. Human rights activist Bijaya Shrestha was beaten up by policemen, while Nepal Student Union President Keshav Singh received severe head injury and Ram Prasad Bhushal student leader of Shankardev Campus received leg injury. Riot police also targeted photo journalists and TV crews with jets from water canons which damaged digital cameras of Ram Prasad Humagain of Nepal News Online and Sundar Shrestha of Nepal Samachar Patra. Photojournalist Nutchhe Dongol was also injured while covering the protest. [28]
On 28 August 2005, at least two dozen people were injured when police intervened in a religious festival ‘Gaura’ at Tundikhel in Kathmandu. The police prevented the festival despite the fact that its organizers had notified District Administration Office of Kathmandu, District Police Office and Ward Police about the programme. [29]
On 27 August 2005, 16 students (14 in Kathmandu and 2 in Kalaiya, Bara district) were injured in police baton charge during protest against hike in price of petroleum products. Police also arrested six student leaders from the rallies, including three in Nepalgunj. [30]
On 22 August 2005, students and riot police clashed in different places in the country during protest rallies against hike in petroleum products. Kalyan Gurung, joint general secretary of the Nepal Students' Union of Nepali Congress-Democratic, Balgopal Upadhyay president of Free Students’ Union in Ratna Rajya Campus and student activists Ram Kumar Bohra and Bhim Bahadur Thapa were detained from Bishwo Bhasa Campus in Kathmandu. In Rajbiraj, police detained six student leaders including Samir Jha, president of the FSU, Baburam Parajuli, Ramchandra Yadav, Ghanananda Yadav, Akhlesh Kumar Jha and Shekhar Kuam Raut, after forcefully entering Mahendra Bidheswori Multiple Campus. [31] Several people including two journalists were injured during beating by riot police in Kathmandu. [32] In Rajbiraj, police opened fire at agitating students injuring one in the firing. [33]
On 21 August 2005, at least 84 students were injured, 21 seriously, and 32 were arrested in a clash with police during protest against the government's decision to hike the price of petroleum products. [34]
On 12 August 2005, at least 26 students were arrested from Kathmandu and Birgunj as they were trying to enforce ‘black out’ programme to protest against the RCCC's action against former prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and former minister Prakash Man Singh. [35] The NSU alleged that detained students in Kathmandu including Ms Bandana Wagle and Ms Maiya Basnet were severely beaten up by police. [36]
On 8 August 2005, at least 22 students were injured, four seriously, in police beating during a peaceful protest programme in front of Amrit Science College, Lainchaur, Kathmandu. [37]
On 4 August 2005, two students were injured and half a dozen others arrested in Kathmandu in police intervention during peaceful protest demonstration in front Shankar Dev Campus at Putalisak. [38]
On 1 August 2005, five students, three of them seriously, were injured in police beating near Putalisadak at Shankar Dev Campus. Student activist Chandra Silwal reportedly lost a finger while Subharam Basnet and Ramesh Kunwar sustained injuries. They had to be admitted to Kathmandu Model Hospital. [39]
4. The case for sanctions and extension of restrictive measures
The visit of the EU Troika must not be restricted to assessing the prevailing situation in Nepal but assessing the effectiveness of the measures taken so far to enable the delegation to make appropriate recommendations to break the stalemate.
King Gyanendra has no intention to give up power. Nor the restoration of pre-May 2002 i.e. installation of proxy government can resolve the problem in Nepal. The increasing approximation of understanding between the Maoists and democratic forces on holding formal talks requires the EU Troika to take effective pre-emptive measures to break the stalemate and find a peaceful solution to the crisis.
In this regard, Asian Centre for Human Rights recommends the following to the EU Troika:
On Government of Nepal
The EU-Troika should:
- Recommend a Common EU Position and a Regulation to impose sanctions against the King Gyanendra and his administration including a visa ban and a freeze on assets of the members of the Royal family, on government ministers, senior members of the Royal Nepal Army, state-owned economic enterprises, and on beneficiaries of the government’s economic policy and members of their families. The sanctions should also include a ban on technical assistance, on financing and financial assistance related to military activities, and on the export of equipment that might be used for repression on-pro democracy activists;
- Recommend that no fund for developmental activities from EU or multilateral agencies be routed through the government of Nepal and such projects be implemented directly or through the NGOs;
- Urge the government of Nepal to respond positively to the cease-fire declared by the Maoists and the OHCHR be invited to monitor the cease-fire agreement and that a fresh Memorandum of Understanding be signed accordingly;
- Urge the government of Nepal to ensure that RNA signs and ensure respect for the Code of Conduct on human rights and humanitarian laws to be monitored by OHCHR and
- Take measures to uphold the supremacy of the judiciary and ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms including the right to freedom of association and assembly and the right to freedom of expression.
On the United States
The EU-Troika should call upon the United States to:
- Support the measures including a Common EU Position and Regulation to be taken by the European Union;
- Review the policy on engagement with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) with a view to ensure restoration of full democracy and peace in Nepal; and
- Consider imposing further sanctions and extension of the restrictive measures against King Gyanendra’s government;
On India
The EU-Troika should call upon India to:
- Support the measures including a Common EU Position and Regulation to be taken by the European Union;
- Use its good offices to urge the government of Nepal to respond to the unilateral cease-fire declared by the Maoists; and
- Support monitoring of cease-fire by international observers such as the OHCHR which is already present in Nepal;
On the political parties in Nepal
The EU-Troika should call upon the political parties to:
- Take initiatives to hold dialogue with the Maoists for resolution of the conflict in Nepal within the framework of human rights, democracy and good governance;
On the Maoists:
The EU-Troika should:
- Welcome the unilateral cease-fire by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists);
- Urge the Maoists to sign the Code of Conduct on human rights to be monitored by OHCHR; and
- Join the democratic forces for resolution of the conflict in Nepal within the framework of human rights, democracy and good governance.
[1] . Women Protesters Accuse Cops of Sexual Molestation, The Himalayan Times, 22 September 2005
[2] . Fact finding mission dismisses RNA claims, The Kantipuronline, 3 October 2005, available at http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=53573
[3] . 40 student protesters injured, The Himalayan Times, 23 September 2005
[4] . ‘Constitution major obstacle’, The Kathmandu Post, 20 September 2005
[5] . SC order has no effect: Krishna KC rearrested, The Himalayan Times, 23 September 2005
[6] . Thapa, Gupta re-arrested defying court order, Nepal News.com, 6 May 2005
[7] . SC defied again, Gagan re-arrested, The Kathmandu Post, 6 May 2005
[8] . Court frees Rai, police re-arrest, The Himalayan Times, 17 May 2005
[9] . Ishwor Pokharel re-arrested, Nepal News.com, 27 May 2005
[10] . Freed man re-arrested, The Kathmandu Post, 9 June 2005
[11] . Subedi re-arrested; Serchan, Pokhrel released, Kantipur Online, 16 June 2005
[12] . Securitymen defy SC, re-arrest student leader, The Kathmandu Post, 23 June 2005
[13] . Man freed by court rearrested, The Kathmandu Post, 25 July
[14] . Police defy court orders, re-arrest two, The Kathmandu Post, 5 August 2005
[15] . Army blamed for rearrest, torture, The Kathmandu Post, 17 August 2005
[16] . Police defy court order, re-arrest five persons, Nepal News.com, 31 August 2005
[17] . http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa310762005
[18] . http://www.achrweb.org/review/2005/61-05.htm
[19] . http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/newsroom?openframeset
[20] . OHCHR concerned over excessive use of police force, Kantipur Online, 20 September 2005
[21] . Tear gas ‘injurious to health:’ Doctors tell govt, Nepal News.com, 7 September 2005
[22] . Police rain batons inside hospital, The Kathmandu Post, 15 September 2005
[23] . School children rendered unconscious, The Kathmandu Post, 15 September 2005
[24] . Women Protesters Accuse Cops of Sexual Molestation, The Himalayan Times, 22 September 2005
[25] . Parties stage protest rally; 150 arrested, dozens injured, Kantipur Online, 5 September 2005
[26] . 87 academics, 290 others arrested, The Kathmandu Post, 21 September 2005
[27] . No let-up in demos; 232 held, freed, The Himalayan Times, 15 September 2005
[28] . 99 protestors arrested, several injured, The Kathmandu Post, 8 September 2005
[29] . Police intervene in a cultural programme in Kathmandu, Nepalnews.com, 28 August 2005
[30] . 16 students hurt in clashes with police, Nepalnews.com, 28 August 2005
[31] . Student protest continues; 10 detained, Kantipur Online, 23 August 2005
[32] . Scores injured in student protests against fuel price hike, Nepalnews.com, 22 August 2005
[33] . Police open fire at agitating students in Rajbiraj, Nepalnews.com, 25 August 2005
[34] . 32 students arrested, 84 injured in clashes, The Kathmandu Post, 22 August 2005
[35] . Students’ blackout, 26 arrested, The Kathmandu Post, 13 August 2005
[36] . Over two dozen student activists detained, Nepalnews.com, 13 August 2005
[37] . Students clash with police, 22 injured, Nepalnews.com, 8 August 2005
[38] . Two students injured, six arrested as police intervene into protests, oNepalnews.com, 4 August 2005
[39] . Students clash with police, five injured, Nepalnews.com 1 August 200